4.6 Article

Tacrolimus as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease in reduced intensity cord blood transplantation for adult patients with advanced Hematologic diseases

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 316-322

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000269796.23593.16

关键词

tacrolimus; acute graft-versus-host disease; reduced intensity cord blood transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Myeloablative cord blood transplantation (CBT) for adult patients offers a 90% chance of engraftment with a 50% rate of transplant-related mortality, mostly attributable to infection. We have demonstrated the feasibility of reduced-intensity CBT (RI-CBT) for adult patients, in which cyclosporine was used for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Transplantation-related mortality (TRM) was 27% within 100 days. Therefore our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of RI-CBT with tacrolimus as GVHD prophylaxis for adult patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods. Thirty-four patients with a median age of 56.5 years (range; 22-68) with hematologic diseases underwent RI-CBT at Toranomon Hospital between November 2003 and September 2004. Preparative regimen comprised fluclarabine 25 mg/m2 on days -7 to -3, melphalan 80 mg/m2 on day -2, and 4 Gy total body irradiation on day -1. GVHD prophylaxis was continuous intravenous infusion of tacrolimus 0.03 mg/kg, starting on day -1. Results. Thirty-one patients achieved neutrophil engraftment at a median of day 20. Median infused total cell dose was 2.4 X 10E7/kg (range; 1.6-4.8). Thirty-two patients achieved complete donor chimerism at day 60. Grade II-IV acute GVHD occurred in 45% of patients, with a median onset of day 26. Primary disease recurred in five patients, and TRM within 100 days was 12%. Estimated 1-year overall survival was 70%. Conclusion. This study demonstrated the possible improvement in transplant-related mortality by tacrolimus as GVHD prophylaxis in adult RI-CBT recipients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据